> From: Patrice Guinard:
> I suggest 3 points for the accuracy of an astrological model:
> - that it isn't contradictory with physics likelihood.
> - that it's intrinsically coherent and logical.
> - that it can explain (or show) why others models are not coherent and
> satisfactory.
> After, the "It works" will ever (!) follow.

To be really a model of astrology, I would need the following:

- that it is not contradicted by well-established astrological practice,
regardless of its "physics likelihood".

I personally find it very difficult to accept any model that dismisses many
things astrologers do as anomalies, errors, "gone astray" practices,
uncritical thinking, etc., only because it doesn't fit into a-priori
assumptions about what astrology is or is not. Astrology is defined by what
astrologers do much more than by theoretical pre-conceptions physically biased.

> A good point. I agree. A real study about the accuracy or not of the
> ecliptical projection of all the planets, and the relations with the
> planetary positions with the circle of Houses, and with the definition of
> aspects must be attentively examined.

It is not only a question of "accurate charting". Astrology manipulates
time-units (directions, progressions) and time directionality (converse
progressions, directions, and transits). It also manipulates purely
symbolical categories (signs of the zodiac, planetary significators,
rulerships, etc.), and offers many alternative ways of modelling the same
reality (the many alternative systems of directions, the many alternative
techniques, the use of asteroids, etc.). All this is very "astrological",
and accurate charting is not necessary to provide useful and successful
interpretations.

> Some astrologers have worked about these problems. They must be always
> discussed. A general reflection about the ACCURATE CHART must be promptly
> engaged. No astrological practice without it. Patrice Guinard

Oblique longitudes derived from the planets' ascensional plane, for
example, represent better their positions in the sky than normal ecliptical
longitudes. But this sort of accuracy has never been necessary in
astrology, even if it is desirable. Medieval astrology worked with very
inaccurately calculated charts, and there are multiple carefully worked-out
versions of some people and nations' charts that work very well. Accuracy
is needed by the mind, because the mind requires the sensation of
specificity, but as long as the mind *believes* that it is accurate, the
particular chart is accepted without question. The accuracy of the charting
is very relative and ultimately subjective, since it is the result of
arbitrary conventions and of beliefs. There is no "objective accuracy" in
the choosing of the time to erect a horary chart, for example, nor in the
choice of "the right moment" to erect a business or a political chart. They
all involve subjective interpretations and conventions that need not be
related to physics.

In other words, the "accuracy" is required, but not in terms of physics.
The mind requires it as a sensation of specificity, i.e., the feeling or
belief that the chart is "correct". "Correct", which is subjective and/or
arbitrary, is more important than "physically accurate". The astrologer
only needs to *think* it is, because that is the *mental* pre-requisite.

This, to me, would be accounting for astrological practice in order to
understand the nature of astrology, what astrologers do, not merely
theoretical assumptions or prejudices.